SACCSIV – blog ortodox

Porcii: Fauci vorbește de un Nou Virus din China care ne poate băga înapoi în izolare

Posted in STIRI, virus by Vali on iulie 1, 2020

Sursa: https://evz.ro/porcii-fauci-vorbeste-de-un-nou-virus-din-china-care-ne-poate-baga-inapoi-in-izolare.html

Doctorul Anthony Fauci a declarat că un nou virus, descoperit la porcii din China, ale trăsăturile Gripei Porcine din 2009 și ale Gripei Spaniole din 1918.

Fauci, membru important al grupului de combatere a COVID-19 format la nivelul Casei Albe, a fost audiat marți, 30 iunie, în Comisia pentru Sănătate a Senatului.

Doctorul a explicat că noul virus, cunoscut ca „G4 EA H1N1”, nu pare să infecteze oameni, deocamdată, dar are „capacități de adaptare”.

„Cu alte cuvinte, când ai un virus nou care se dovedește a fi un virus pandemic, acest lucru este cauzat de mutații și/sau de adaptarea sau schimbarea genelor”, a spus Fauci.

„Și poate fi găsit virusul la porci, la suine, care au caracteristicile virusului H1N1 din 2009, ale virusului original din 1918, ale căror rămășițe pot fi întâlnite la mulți dintre virușii noștri de gripă, precum și segmente de la alte gazde, ca porcii.”

Fauci i-a avertizat pe senatorii americani în legătură cu „posibilitatea să avem o altă gripă de tipul epidemiei de gripă porcină pe care am avut-o în 2009”.

„Este ceva care se află încă în faza de examinare.”

Gripa porcină H1N1 a apărut în Mexic în 2009, infectând cel puțin 700 de milioane de persoane în lumea întreagă, dintre care 60 de milioane în Statele Unite.

Se estimează că atunci au murit între 151.700 și 575.400 de oameni în toată lumea.

Gripa Spaniolă din 1918, pe care Fauci o compară adesea cu COVID-19, se estimează că a ucis între 30 și 50 de milioane de oameni în lumea întreagă.

În Primul Război Mondial, spre comparație, au murit 20 de milioane de oameni.

De asemenea, Fauci a afirmat că este „destul de îngrijorat”, privind recenta creștere de cazuri de coronavirus din China, acuzând țările lumii că s-au grăbit să adopte măsuri de relaxare, inclusiv Statele Unite.

„Trebuie să transmitem acest mesaj că suntem cu toții implicați în asta. Dacă vom reuși să învingem pandemia, vom reuși împreună (toate țările).”

Folosind de acum tradiționalul său ton panicat, Fauci a avertizat în legătură cu posibilă creștere exponențială a cazurilor în Statele Unite.

Referindu-se la nerespectarea măsurilor de prevenție și de izolare, el a spus: „Avem acum 40.000 și ceva de cazuri pe zi; nu aș fi surprins dacă am ajunge din nou la 100.000 de cazuri pe zi, dacă situația nu se schimbă”.

2 răspunsuri

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. despre fauci said, on octombrie 2, 2020 at 7:14 pm

    Fauci says he wears a mask to be a symbol of what ‘you should be doing’
    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/27/politics/fauci-coronavirus-wear-masks-cnntv/index.html

    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Fauci+jesuit

    Anthony Fauci, product of Catholic education, oversees pandemic response
    https://aleteia.org/2020/04/02/anthony-fauci-product-of-catholic-education-oversees-pandemic-response/

    The Truth about DR. Anthony Fauci
    https://realverifiednews.com/the-truth-about-dr-anthony-fauci/

    Apreciază

    • despre iezuiți said, on octombrie 2, 2020 at 8:11 pm

      Sfântul Ignatie Briancianinov despre iezuitul Ignatiu de Loyola:

      […]

      Ca pilda de carte ascetica scrisa in acea stare de inselare numita „părere” putem da lucrarea lui Toma de Kempis, numita „Urmarea lui Hristos”. Ea răsufla o patima subţire a dulcetii si o cugetare semeaţă, care naşte in oamenii orbiţi si plini pe deasupra peste măsura de patimi, o desfătare pe care ei o socot gustare a harului Dumnezeiesc. Nefericiţii si intunecatii ! Ei nu pricep, ca adulmecând damful subţire al patimilor care trăiesc in ei, se indulcesc de el, socotindu-l in orbirea lor, mireasma a harului ! Ei nu inteleg ca de desfătarea duhovniceasca sunt in stare doar sfinţii, ca inaintea desfătării duhovniceşti trebuie sa meargă pocăinţa si curăţirea de patimi, ca desfătarea duhovniceasca nu sta in puterea păcătosului, ca el trebuie sa se cunoască pe sine ca fiind nevrednic de desfătare, sa o alunge, daca aceasta va incepe sa-i dea târcoale, sa o alunge ca pe un lucru nepotrivit cu el, ca pe o vădita si pierzătoare amăgire de sine, ca pe o mişcare subţire a slavei deşarte, a cugetării semeţe si a patimii dulcetii. În pustnicie, au ajuns, asemenea lui Malpas, la cea mai vartoasa inselare demonica Francisc de Assisi, Ignatiu de Loyola si alii nevoitori ai latinilor (După căderea Bisericii de Apus de la cea din Răsărit), recunoscuţi de ei ca sfinţi. „Atunci când Francisc a fost răpit la cer” spune scriitorul Vieţii acestuia, „Dumnezeu Tatăl, vazandu-l, S-a intrebat, fiind pentru o clipa in nedumerire: cui sa dea intaietate, Fiului Sau Celui după fire, sau fiului după har – Francisc”. Ce poate fi mai cumplit, mai had decât aceasta hula, ce poate fi mai intristator decât aceasta amăgire !
      https://archive.org/details/Sfantul_Ignatie_Briancianinov-Despre_inselare/page/n20/mode/1up
      […]

      The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews: Jesuits of Jewish Ancestry and Purity-of-Blood Laws in the Early Society of Jesus
      https://html.duckduckgo.com/html/?q=The+Jesuit+Order+as+a+Synagogue+of+Jews%3A+Jesuits+of+Jewish+Ancestry+and+Purity-of-Blood+Laws+in+the+Early+Society+of+Jesus

      Review: The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews – Part One
      https://theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/12/26/review-the-jesuit-order-as-a-synagogue-of-jews-part-one/

      […]

      The Jewish Origins of the Jesuits

      On 15 August 1534, Ignatius of Loyola (born Íñigo López de Loyola), a Spaniard from the Basque city of Loyola, and six others, all students at the University of Paris, met in Montmartre outside Paris, in a crypt beneath the church of Saint Denis, to pronounce the religious vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Ignatius’ six companions were: Francis Xavier from Navarre (modern Spain), Alfonso Salmeron, Diego Laínez, Nicolás Bobadilla from Castile (modern Spain), Pierre Favre from Savoy, and Simão Rodrigues from Portugal. At this point they called themselves the Compañía de Jesús, and also Amigos en El Señor or “Friends in the Lord.” The Spanish “company” would be translated into Latin as societas, deriving from socius, a partner or comrade. This soon evolved into the “Society of Jesus” (SJ) by which they would later be more widely known. In 1537, the seven travelled to Italy to seek papal approval for their order. Pope Paul III gave them a commendation, and permitted them to be ordained priests. The official founding of the Society of Jesus occurred in 1540.

      The presence and influence of conversos in the Society of Jesus was strong from the beginning. Of the seven founding members, Maryks provides categorical evidence that four were of Jewish ancestry — Salmeron, Laínez, Bobadilla, and Rodrigues. In addition, Loyola himself has long been noted for his strong philo-Semitism, and one recent PhD thesis[1] has even advanced a convincing argument that Loyola’s maternal grandparents, (his grandfather, Dr. Martín García de Licona, was a merchant and financial advisor at court), were full-blooded conversos — thus rendering the ‘Basque nobleman’ halachically Jewish. Jewish scholar of the Inquisition, Henry Kamen, who had earlier argued that the Inquisition was “a weapon of social welfare” used mainly to obliterate the conversos as a distinct class capable of offering social and economic competition to ‘Old Christians,’ once voiced his own personal view that Loyola was “a deep and sincere spiritual Semite.”[2]

      Straightforward assessments of the reasons for Loyola’s philo-Semitism are, as Maryks admirably elucidates, complicated by the ubiquitous presence of converso propaganda. More specifically, Loyola’s reputation as an ardent admirer of the Jews rests predominantly on a series of anecdotes and remarks attributed to him — and many of these derive from biographies penned shortly after his death by converso Jesuits aiming to promote and defend their interests. For example, the only source for the argument that Loyola had an overwhelming desire to be of Jewish origin so that he could “become a relative of Christ and his Mother” is the first official biography of Loyola — penned by the converso Pedro de Ribadeneyra. Ribadeneyra is described by Maryks as “a closet-converso” who distorted many now-established facts about Loyola’s life, including a concealment of the fact that “the Inquisition in Alcalá had accused Loyola of being a crypto-Jew.” (43) An important aspect of Ribadeneyra’s biography was thus the promotion of the idea that being Jewish was desirable and admirable — Loyola’s philo-Semitism (real or imagined) was intended to be emulated. Meanwhile the sinister aspects of crypto-Judaism, and their suppression by the Inquisition, were excised from the story altogether.

      Whether Loyola was in fact a crypto-Jew, or whether he indeed was a European but possessed a strong desire to be a Jew, remains unconfirmed at time of this writing. However, it is certain that Loyola surrounded himself with many converso colleagues and that he opposed any discrimination against converso candidates within the Society of Jesus. Maryks argues that, issues of crypsis and philo-Semitism aside, Loyola was probably “motivated by the financial support that he had sought from their [converso] network in Spain.”(xx) In this reading then, Loyola was fully aware of the elite position of the conversos within Spanish society and was prepared to accept their money to establish his organization in exchange for adopting a non-racial stance in its governance.

      The question of course remains as to why the crypto-Jewish elite in Spain would back, both financially and in terms of manpower, a Christian religious order. The important thing to keep in mind is that religion and politics in Early Modern Europe were intimately entwined, and that, through spiritual confraternities and their relationships with local elites, even poverty-espousing religious orders like the Franciscans could exert a strong form of socio-political influence. This was often made even more sharply evident when religious orders engaged in missionary work in foreign lands, often taking pioneering roles in colonial regimes, and even assisting with their economic enterprises. William Caferro notes that in Renaissance Italy “the Florentine political elite was closely tied to the church. Government officials often held high church office and benefice, which aided their local political power.”[3] Involvement in religious orders was thus a necessary aspect and extension of political, social, and cultural influence.

      Unsurprisingly then, it can be demonstrated that crypto-Jews straddled the interconnected networks of royal administration, the civic bureaucracy, and the Church. Citing just some examples, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh note in their history of the Inquisition:

      In 1390 the rabbi of Burgos converted to Catholicism. He ended his life as Bishop of Burgos, Papal legate and tutor to a prince of the blood. [Burgos’s son would later become an important pro-converso activist and will be discussed below]. He was not alone. In some of the major cities, the administration was dominated by prominent converso families. At the very time the Spanish Inquisition was formed, King Ferdinand’s treasurer was converso in his background. In Aragón, the five highest administrative posts in the kingdom were occupied by conversos. In Castile, there were at least four converso bishops. Three of Queen Isabella’s secretaries were conversos, as was the official court chronicler.[4]

      For the crypto-Jewish elite of early modern Spain, the founding of an influential religious order headed by a philo-Semite (if not a fellow crypto-Jew), staffed predominantly by a converso leadership, and constitutionally tolerant of converso applicants, would undoubtedly have been an attractive prospect. That a bargain of some form existed between Loyola and his crypto-Jewish sponsors is suggested, as noted above, by the nature of the early Jesuit constitution and by early correspondence concerning the admission of candidates of Jewish ancestry. The founding of the Jesuit order had coincided with the rise of a more general Spanish anti-converso atmosphere that reached its peak in 1547, “when the most authoritative expression of the purity-of- blood legislation, El Estatuto de limpieza [de sangre], was issued by the Inquisitor General of Spain and Archbishop of Toledo, Silíceo (xx).” Pope Paul IV and Silíceo’s former pupil, King Philip II, ratified the archbishop’s statutes in 1555 and 1556, respectively, but Ignatius of Loyola and his converso successor, Diego Laínez (1512–65) vigorously opposed the Inquisitor’s attempts to preclude conversos from joining the Jesuits. In fact, in a letter addressed to the Jesuit Francisco de Villanueva (1509–57), Loyola wrote that “in no way would the Jesuit Constitutions accept the policy of the archbishop (xxi).”

      Seeking to quell rising tensions over the issue, in February 1554 Loyola sent his plenipotentiary emissary, Jerónimo Nadal (1507–80), to visit the Inquisitor. Nadal insisted that the Jesuit Constitutions did not discriminate between candidates of the Society on the basis of lineage, and even personally admitted a number of converso candidates during his visit to Iberia. In a heated debate with the Inquisitor over the admission of one of them, Nadal replied: “We [Jesuits] take pleasure in admitting those of Jewish ancestry.” In what would become a striking pattern, most of the pro-converso arguments were made by crypto-Jews claiming to be native Spaniards. Maryks notes that his historical investigations suggest that Nadal was “most probably a descendant of Majorcan Jews (77).”

      Jewish attempts to alter Christian thinking about Jews, from within Christianity, were already well-established by the date of Nadal’s intercession with the Inquisitor. An excellent example is the classic work of Alonso de Santa María de Cartagena (1384–1456) — Defensorium unitatis christianae [In Defense of Christian Unity] (1449–50). Alonso de Cartagena had been baptized (at the age of five or six) by his father Shlomo ha-Levi, later renamed Pablo de Santa María (c. 1351–1435), who— as chief rabbi of Burgos—converted to Christianity just before the anti-Jewish riots of 1391 and later was elected bishop of Cartagena (1402) and Burgos (1415). The fact that the wife of this Bishop of Burgos remained an unconverted Jewess does not appear to have impeded the latter’s career in the Church is interesting to say the least.

      Meanwhile his son, Cartagena, like many other conversos, studied civil and ecclesiastical law at Salamanca and went on to a highly influential career straddling royal, civic, and religious spheres. He served as apostolic nuncio and canon in Burgos. King Juan II appointed Cartagena as his official envoy to the Council of Basel (1434–9), where he contributed to the formulation of a decree on “the regenerative character of baptism without regard for lineage (4).” Like other examples of pro-converso propaganda, however, Cartagena’s arguments always went beyond mere appeals for ‘tolerance.’ According to Cartagena, “the faith appears to be more splendid in the Israelite flesh,” Jews naturally possess a “civic nobility,” and it was the duty of rough and uncouth native Spaniards to unite with the “tenderness of the Israelite meekness.” (14, 17)

      Conversos thus emerge in the works of the earliest crypto-Jewish activists as more special than ordinary Christians, as naturally deserving of an elite status, and, far from being the worthy objects of hostility, were in fact uniquely blameless, ‘tender,’ and ‘meek.’ One is struck by the regular use of similar arguments in our contemporary environment, a similarity that only increases when one considers Cartagena’s attribution of anti-Jewish hostility solely to “the malice of the envious.” (20)

      Against this backdrop of crypto-Jewish apologetics, Maryks demonstrates, whether he intends to or not, that the early Jesuits were largely a vehicle for converso power and influence (both political and ideological). Loyola continued to be “surrounded” by conversos throughout his leadership (55). Enrique Enríques, the son of Portuguese Jews, even authored the first Jesuit manual of moral theology, Theologiae moralis summa, in 1591. (65) Maryks describes Loyola as having an unlimited “trust” in candidates of Jewish heritage, citing his decision to “admit in 1551 Giovanni Battista Eliano (Romano), the grandson of the famous grammarian and poet Rabbi Elijah Levita (1468–1549) …. He entered the Society at the age of twenty-one, just three months after his baptism (66).”

      In explaining Loyola’s lax requirements for converso applicants, and resultant acquiescence in flooding the Society with crypto-Jews, it is strange that Maryks should abandon his own prior suggestion that the founding of the Jesuits may have rested on a quid pro quo with the converso elite in favor of a less convincing theory based on a putative and ill-explained “trust” that Loyola possessed for Jews. Unfortunately this is a common theme throughout Jewish historiography, where the facts and conclusions presented in the same text are often on entirely different trajectories. In a similar vein, Maryks’s skeletal explanation that crypto-Jews flooded the Jesuits simply because Loyola had “numerous contacts with the converso spiritual and merchant network” before he founded the Society of Jesus, seems woefully inadequate and lacking in context.

      Despite the best laid plans of Loyola and his colleagues, and just 32 years after its founding, the Society of Jesus would undergo a revolt from below against a rapidly expanding crypto-Jewish elite. The features of this revolt represent a fascinating case study in the reactive nature of anti-Semitism. Maryks narrative of how two competing ethnic groups struggled for the future of the Jesuit Order, outlined in his second and third chapters, is certainly the greatest strength of the text. It is to this European counter-strategy that we now turn our attention.

      [1] See Kevin Ingram, Secret lives, public lies: The conversos and socio-religious non-conformism in the Spanish Golden Age. Ph.D. Thesis (San Diego: University of California, 2006), pp. 87–8.

      [2] Quoted in Maryks, The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews, p.xx.

      [3] W. Caferro, Contesting the Renaissance (Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), p.158.

      [4] M. Baigent & R. Leigh, The Inquisition (London: Viking Press, 1999), pp.75-6.

      Review: The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews — Part Two
      https://theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/12/27/review-the-jesuit-order-as-a-synagogue-of-jews-part-two/

      Apreciază


Responsabilitatea juridică pentru conţinutul comentariilor dvs. vă revine în exclusivitate.

Completează mai jos detaliile tale sau dă clic pe un icon pentru a te autentifica:

Logo WordPress.com

Comentezi folosind contul tău WordPress.com. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Fotografie Google

Comentezi folosind contul tău Google. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Poză Twitter

Comentezi folosind contul tău Twitter. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Fotografie Facebook

Comentezi folosind contul tău Facebook. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Conectare la %s

Acest site folosește Akismet pentru a reduce spamul. Află cum sunt procesate datele comentariilor tale.

%d blogeri au apreciat: